Do you believe what you read in the paper? How about what you see on TV news? If you are a GOP partisan, the answer is probably not.

The Pew Research Center says, for the second time in a decade, “the believability ratings for major news organizations have suffered broad-based declines.” A survey found the falloff in credibility extended to national newspapers (the New York Times and USA Today), three cable news outlets (Fox, CNN, MSNBC), as well as the broadcast TV networks and NPR. Local newspapers and TV stations fared somewhat better.

According to the study, “since 2002, every news outlet’s believability rating has suffered a double-digit drop, except for local daily newspapers and local TV news.”

The Pew folks note the partisan differences in responses to their survey, apparent for years, are growing larger. Republicans’ views of the credibility of the media have continued to erode. By contrast, the study says, Democrats generally rate the believability of news organizations positively.

Political coverage is taking new forms as newspapers, websites, cable networks and broadcasters search for digital options. If they’re this slick tonight, imagine what November will look like.

The New York Times took the next step in showing how newspaper folk can evolve. Columnists talking, editors conferring, political experts chiming in, in the newsroom, on camera. Of course they often looked uncomfortable, and the whole thing had an intriguing amateur gloss to it. But this is how formerly ink-stained wretches become digital content providers in real time.

Now that real-time maps have become fairly standard (like those on the Denver Post’s website), this is the way forward.

A provocative front-page story in today’s New York Times is a talker in media circles. Was the media sexist in its treatment of Hillary Clinton during the campaign and did sexism affect the outcome of the primaries?

[photopress:16_hillarydebate_lg.jpg,thumb,pp_image]

I’m with Candy Crowley of CNN who says there was not sexism in the reporting, but plenty in the commentary. The trouble is the idea of a monolithic entity called “The Media” is too vague; you can’t paint scrupulous reporters and showbiz yakkers with the same brush.

Commentators Chris Matthews, shrill-voiced Pat Buchanan and Tucker Carlson were among the worst offenders, as seen in this video making the internet rounds…

Yet a sharp attack from an unusual quarter gave pause this week when Katie Couric used her anchor post to scold the media for its biased treatment of Clinton. Clearly, this is a woman who’s been on the receiving end of sexist insults and knows whereof she speaks.

Now the narrative moves from charges of sexism to charges of racism as the campaign of Barack Obama progresses. What’s been said about his wife is shameful, but again, it’s only a corner of the cable news world that’s listening.

It’s important that the country is having these conversations. Just be careful to specify which part of the all-encompassing “media” you blame.

Joanne Ostrow has been watching TV since before "reality" required quotation marks. "Hill Street Blues" was life-changing. If Dickens, Twain or Agatha Christie were alive today, they'd be writing for television. And proud of it.